Posted 2 years ago on March 15, 2012, 8:30 p.m. EST by BlackSun
(275)
from Agua León, BC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It has to do with having to show identification before you can vote. Somehow this disenfranchises non white voters.
Of course, they go to the Human Rights Council. Some of the present members are Saudi Arabia ( where women are not allowed to vote), Uganda, (anti gay laws are rampant) , and others of questionable human rights record.
What think you?

it should disenfranchise every american.. the whole process depends on the 'anonymous' vote. its easy to see how emotional and enraged people get over politics. thats why it has to be anonymous and stay anonymous

Plus, not one doncumented case of voter fraud from those with no ID in Penn. where the lates ID law was passed.. But the Repugnicans have been shown to have rigged the 2004 elections with "fixed" voting machines by diebold, a Texas company with ties to GWB, and that's just the start of their documented elecion tampering.

Plus Penn. has been a swing state in national elections for years noe, I guess the slimy repug. pilitical hacks have told them to focus on rigging Penn'.this year.

But don't you get it? That will further oppress those poor, down trodden totally helpless blacks. Don't you feel guilty for ALL of the horrible, hideous things you have done to those poor, weak, hapless people?
For shame!

I think the attempt to disenfranchise Americans for the non-problem of voter fraud is a serious undermining of our democracy. I don't think going to the U.N. is going to help or that it is even a good idea.

No, they have gone to a foreign, new world order organization that you seem to support, and claimed that their voting "rights" will be forfeit if they are required to provide some kind of proof that they have a right to vote.
The fact that your side is panicking about this whole issue is reason enough to suspect it.
And why is it only blacks that are afraid of this?

I'm not an apologist for the U.N. LOL! When did I say I support the U.N.? I said I didn't think that was a good idea.

Why would any American want to disenfranchise any other American? The scaredy cats here are the Republicans who are trying to quash Democratic votes. And, it is not only blacks that don't like this, but other minority groups, the elderly and even students whose votes they want to quash by changing the rules regarding distance voting.

Because it makes it harder for the poor, minorities and the otherwise disenfranchised to have a vote, for reasons that have already been pointed out to you repeatedly. And since there is ZERO evidence that non-citizens perpetrate fraud like the one you're describing, not such law is necessary. So why do you support it, given it is an entirely manufactured, fact and evidence free issue?

The NAACP is pissed for good reason. They aren't doing this because they have so many resources that they can afford to piss them away on frivolous nonsense. They are using their limited resources to publicize this because the Right wing has passed these ALEC written laws purposefully and SPECIFICALLY to suppress the Black vote, among that of other minorities, which are overwhelmingly Democrat. It is a strategy as transparent as glass, and everyone (but you, apparently) knows it.

Good to see you have ALL your talking points well in hand.
I've no doubt your non whites will vote in I. Record numbers for your political gods that will lead you to utopia.
Of course, if that doesn't happen then you. Can blame it on those hateful white conservatives...

The very term "conservative" denotes an opposition to forward progress, to trying to go backward, so nope, nothing. It has created nothing because it is the opposite of creative; by definition its purpose is to undo what has been brought forward.

So let's all go back to petticoats and slavery. (Sorry, I know, cheap shot, but that is the essence of conservatism - being nostalgically backward-looking to a golden past that never was).

If it is genuine progress, it is, by definition, good. To be sure, a war can progress, but by its very nature, it is regressive.

But let's say that conservatism is not simply about going backward, but halting something going in the wrong direction. First, that is still not creating anything, but preserving something that was once progressive. And it only make the dubious claim of being right at the moment, since its aim is to preserve the very things it opposed yesterday that have been proven good.

Second, in practice, what has been that batting average of that? Pretty close to zero, starting with the original conservatives, the Tories.

Conservatives, by attempting to retain the status quo, are trying to preserve those things in the system that have been proven to create inequality. That preservation is not benign, nor is it static. If the system creates a even a little bit of inequality each year, that inequality accumulates, compounds, with each passing day. If the system advantages one group over another, even a little, before you know it, the disadvantages of one group become glaring.

So neither going backwards nor preserving inequities is for the good.

Now have there been times in which conservatives did some good? Sure. Truman was a conservative. During the war, he led the charge to keep costs down, and to unearth war profiteering. That was very good. But the purpose of his conservatism was not to undermine other programs like the New Deal. His conservatism simply aspired to demanding honesty in government AND businesses. It was not about turning back the clock, or undermining the ability of the government to care for its people, or preserving in amber the inequities of government or capitalism, but to make government more efficient and more effective. That does not come close to the modern version of the conservative, or most of the others who called themselves that at any time in history.

I said "just about" not absolutely. How many things wrong with the country are due to women or minorities? Who was in charge? Who makes up the power elite? Was it the disenfranchised, the poor, minorities? News flash: it is rich white men. And who among them did the most damage? Another news flash: Conservatives.

Did I mention a political party? Nope. There have been plenty of democratic conservatives. And they are just as hateful as their republitard counterparts. But other than Olympia Snow, the republitards have been ALL hateful conservatives for a very long time.

If everyone was given an opportunity for a free ID, a reasonable time to do it (weekends, etc), and so, just for discussion, be done by 2016, would there be objection to it? Just about everyone in the country has an iD requirement for most basic things we do everyday: cash a check, visit a doctor, drive, use a credit card, etc. I do not see how this would disenfranchise anyone other than those who should not be voting anyway (including dead people who seem to vote quite a bit in Philadelphia).

Actually I see no real issues with a national ID card. We are almost there now as most everyone has a photo ID. Might even be cheaper for all the states to manage together with the federal gov. Would standardize it, and might make ID theft harder if the right format is used. It might also be first step in sorting out the illegal alien issue that has to be reckoned with eventually (but that is another topic)

Yes, agree with that. The problem is that many people have what they believe are priorities over other's. I will go with money in politics and leave the rest for now. Taking care of that one might take care of others by default (more compromise would occur).

I registered to vote a long time ago and don't remember what is required. This is not just an issue for black people. You seem very sensitive to that. Why? It's really an issue for poor people and the elderly.

I'm babbling about oppressed blacks. Are you aware that 40% of African American children live in poverty? Do you really want any of the adults that care for those children to be disenfranchised? I don't. I don't want any American disenfranchised. These laws are targeted at poor people and a large number of poor people are minorities. That is just a sad fact. And, as a matter of fact, lots of elderly people don't have ID. What do they need ID for if they don't drive and don't travel which is the case with a lot of old people? There are even some old people who don't possess birth certificates so they would have an even harder time getting this beloved ID of yours.

Why do you want the government controlling all of us with ID anyway? I'm just not getting that. You seem like a libertarian to me from many of your posts so why on earth would you want the gov't to have that kind of control over people? Not making much sense to me.

That is not true. I have never had to show identification to vote. Where are you getting that from? I have to sign my signature and they match it to a book that has my signature in it. Since when does being a citizen require ID? It never has before.

I just checked my state's voter registration form. You need no ID. You give your social security number and swear you are a citizen and show proof of residence.

A non problem? Are you saying that neither party has benefited from voter fraud?
And that not requiring a simple thing like actually proving you are eligible to vote ( per the Constitution only citizens can vote) is somehow wrong?

Yes. I'm not an expert but there have been very few cases of voter fraud in this country. I think only 6 convictions in the past several years.

Requiring people to get identification hurts the poor the most and that indirectly hurts minorities. Many poor people do not drive and do not have driver's licenses. Same thing with the elderly. Requiring people to get ID's means taking time off work, getting to the place you need to get to, having the appropriate documents to get the ID, and paying the fee. It's an unnecessary hurdle.

If they want to implement this kind of thing they need to do it over a longer period of time.

This is being pushed by Republicans. Why? Because they know that it will disenfranchise many people who tend to vote Democratic. It is wrong.

It's not free when you have to take time off from work, wait in line, get yourself to the place (especially if you don't drive). It's complicated for some people. How about an elderly person. Not so easy for them. Come on. See this for what it is. It's a scam to disenfranchise voters who tend to vote Democratic.

Those are good ideas. Many people would still need help to learn about how to utilize those functions. And, you know what? It is sinister. Sorry, but it's very sinister when one political party is trying to suppress the votes of another. I'd feel the same way if the Democrats were trying to put something in place to suppress Republican votes.

So its OK to require a photo ID to get into an R rated movie or cash a check, but not to vote? You have to have a photo ID to get a fishing license. You have to have a photo ID to buy cigarettes. You have have an ID to rent a cement mixer.

But not to vote? Sorry I will never agree with you, never. Citizenship demands a level of responsibilty, and spending 15 mins to get a photo ID is the least an American citizen can do to show his responsibilty.

You are wrong. I'm not saying ID is a problem. I'm saying requiring it quickly during a Presidential election season is wrong because it will disenfranchise people. You libertarians. You amaze me. Why would government ID be acceptable to any of you? Seems very hypocritical to me.

Disenfranchisement is just about the most heinous thing you can do in a democracy. It is unconstitutional. You want IDs then give more time so people can get them.

It takes 15 minutes. More time? I just got a notice to report for jury duty, i need to respond in 7 working days or I am in violation and can be fined. Can we set thst as the maximum time to get an ID? One week? They are very similar.

Answer the question: if you are required to have a picture ID to catch a fish, how long should you have to get an ID to vote. Answer the question, dont chicken out and throw up a strawman. Answer the question.

Are you aware that people must be registered to vote? Is that not enough for you?

Look, aflockofdoodi, I didn't deflect anything. I don't care if people are required to have IDs necessarily, but I do care if it's being required immediately during a Presidential election year because that is just wrong and will disenfranchise people, an unconstitutional act.

If they were required to get it then, then why is it an issue today? No, they weren't required to get ID. Someone on here said give people until 2014 or 2016, I can't remember, but that seems reasonable. It should have nothing to do with the Presidential election of this year. Don't forget, these people registered to vote. They are registered voters!

Okay. You have your talking points from your masters down to a tee.
Pressing problem? If its not then why object?vwhats the big deal? Do you think non citizens should be allowed to vote? How will you tell if a potential voter is a citizen?
Or does it matter?
And why the ripe fuck is it only you reds that object to this?
Should we also do away with identification for buying alcohol? Prescription drugs? A drivers liscence? Should this nation do away with all forms of ID?

I never called for government ID. And I never said I was a Libertarian. I am a liberal. I just am not the type of person that assumes things about strangers, such as their philosophical associations, or their supposed inability to drive to the DMV.

I know, right? There are just too many procedural hurdles that they are incapable of jumping because of their race, like going to the DMV to get identification. There is actually a segment of the law in certain states that says "Black people need ID to vote, but not white people". It's blatantly unfair application of the law.

Why is it only the minorty groups that have a problem? I don't see it as a problem.

When was the last time anyone went anywhere without some kind of identification - go to the bank and cash a check - ID required go buy something on a credit card - ID required go to the airport to catch a flight out Several ID's required, drive a car - ID required. The list goes on and on..

Even those collecting food stamps, unemployment or government assistance have to provide identification.

I'm not worried - they can't because what I posted is true. They all do it so how can they say on one hand that having ID for voting is not right when on the other hand they all have to have ID for anything they do.

Believe it or not there are some people in this country who do not drive, do not use credit cards, do not travel, do not collect welfare or food stamps, etc. who do not have identification who would need ample time to get it or be disenfranchised. These very same people are actually registered voters. Voting is their constitutional right. Why would you want to take it away?

Has nothing to do with "taking away their right to vote" What it has to do is being able to identify the person voting so that we don't have them voting in one district and then going to another district and voting again and so on.

Again that's fine but just because a person submits a signature in one voting district, what's to keep them from voting in another voting district under another name or for that matter several other voting districts?

Now if you say they have a "address" for this individual then that's identification and why is that any different then a photo ID?

Why is showing proof of address different than having a photo ID? I believe that what actually happens is that voter registration forms are mailed to everyone's address by the government, you fill it out and send it in. I see a big difference there.

The problem is this sudden movement to require IDs during a Presidential election year. It doesn't allow enough time and it is obviously a blatant attempt by Republicans to suppress voters who are likely to vote Democratic.

It's the parents that are f'd up. They don't want to be responsible for their children and expect the schoold to raise them.

Not all "young people" have no integrity nor honesty". Probably about 20% are ok the rest remain to be counted.

The vast majority of the younger generation has this idea about thinking that everything should be given to them now.

They don't want to have to work like a lot of people do for years before they become financially secure and have some wealth.

You don't see older people waiting in line 2 days before the doors of Apple open so they could go in there and spend $500 or more for the latest greatest electronic device since Jesus was born.

Only to have bargging rights about having the device because it can do wonderful things that are worthless.

If they spend more time focused on a career and trying to find a job they would. There is plenty of employment opportunities out there besides having a job that requires a college degree.

I saw it back when restraunts and food chains were giving young people with a college degree a managment position. No experience - the job was handed to them because they felt "important" and money wasn't an issue because they were told they would make big bucks.

Well fast forward 15 years and tell me how the customer service is in restraunts anymore. People enter and leave jobs like it's a revolving door because now they want something different and can't have it. .

I just don't see this. I see young people working hard only to find that the economy has very little to offer in terms of employment, let alone, career opportunities. These kids are very unlikely to ever have jobs that offer a full menu of benefits including pension, vacation, sick pay, the works, the way older people had it. And, you can forget about job security. They won't have that either.

Young kids are one thing 18 - 22. After age 22 then responsibility should set in.

Where is it written that a person should have job security. Knowing that a person might lose their job gives them the insight to improve their job skills and make themselves more employable.

It takes time to do this - it doesn't happen overnight like most people would like to think.

There are plently of opportunities out there for people who want to work.

It takes determination - not whining - to get a job in todays market.

I'll give you an example - this woman friend of ours who is single has a son we have known since he wat 5 is now at the age of 24.

Over the years he has always looked to me to help him out. Fast forward to the last 5 years while he has been in college.

He has a tendency to complain about how things suck because he "isn't a millionaire" and wants to be one.

I continually remind him that it takes time to build wealth and you first have to crawl before you can walk.

He has worked hard supporting his habits - new car (2005) when he bought it - apartment - new furniture and so on.

While going to college he worked as a server and bartender. His total college debt as of today is $25,000. His car will be paid off in 2 months, he has a girl friend who is going to school to become a RN and he is the only one prividing the financial support.

He has always complained about not having a good payng job. We talk on a regular basis and I remind him that if he is persistent it will happen.

He explains that he sends resumes out all the time. He has been interviewed several times and had the job but it didn't pay what he wanted.

I said well - then you have to deal with it - you can't be at the top when you start off in life - that's a fact of life.

So as time went on he became involved in the law enforcement field in his college corriculum and voluntered working with county inmates.

A job interview became available to him because of his persistence to get into law enforcement and because of his past experience he is now going to be hired. His salary will not be anywhere near what he wants but he has learned to accept that.

But the bottom line to this is - he is going to be successful - he has learned to be persistent because he knows that thats what it takes, and doesn't take no for an answer.

It is possible that things may have been different if I weren't around and kept reminding him that life isn't easy and if you want something you are going to have to go after it regardless of what it is.

He is one of the few that has this fortitude. I have talked to many a young men about going to school to learn more about their craft, talking with them about their future, but it falls on deaf ears.

So, unless a person is wiling to go the extra mile, regardless of the circumstances, they will succede - that is what our country was built on - it wasn't built on "well I can't find a job" maybe the government can provide one for me.

So, here is one example of a person who has been given a lesson in life understanding that persistence pays off.

I understand what you are saying and it is commendable of you to be a role model for this young man, however, when half of all jobs in this country pay less than $26,000 per year there really isn't a lot of opportunity regardless of how persistent one is. If everyone were persistent there would still be half the jobs paying less than $26,000 per year. Anyway, I hope things work out well for him.

Well, if we can stick it to the republicans by bitching to the UN it's OK with me! We're just trying to make conservative bastards look bad by pretending the UN can do fuckall about anything, don't you know there's an election coming up?

There will be hundreds of stories like this between now and president for life Barack Hussien Obama's coronation!